1/30/2013

So a bereaved father made this statement advocating the ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines:

At the 15 minute mark, the father says:

I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question … why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.

At this point, he pauses for effect, as if inviting people in the room to comment. When nobody says anything, he says: “And not one person can answer that question.” As if people’s silence proved he was right.

Then a few people say — not yell — things about the Second Amendment, some quoting the part about how the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” In this way, he was disallowed from arguing that the silence of people in the room signaled agreement with his position.

Then an official threatened to remove the people whose comments had been solicited, for the offense of responding to the father’s request for comment: “Please no comments while Mr. Heslin is speaking. Or we’ll clear the room. Mr. Heslin please continue.”

This was described as “heckling” by a number of people. You can watch the video above to confirm my description of the account, and reach your own conclusion about whether this constitutes “heckling.” Once you’ve reached your conclusion, you’ll probably want a list of people who described this as “heckling,” so you can factor this episode into your decisionmaking about whether to trust these people in the future.

Luckily, in a post that JD linked last night, Twitchy has compiled tweets from many of these people. I think they should be named. They include Eric Boehlert, Charles Johnson, David Frum, Andrew Kaczynski of BuzzFeed, John Marshall, Piers Morgan, Raw Story, Gawker, Slate, the Daily Beast, and HuffPo, among others.

Each used the word “heckled” to describe people a) giving comments that had been invited, and b) refusing to have their silence falsely portrayed as agreement with an opinion they rejected.

Allahpundit has the details on how Slate, Piers Morgan, and others retracted (Morgan acted the ass in his apology, as you would expect). Larry O’Donnell doubled down, pretending to ignore the fact that the father was calling for the BAN of these weapons, and that the father was falsely portraying silence as agreement.

UPDATE: It’s a neat little Catch 22, isn’t it? If you speak out, even if invited to, you’re a jerk, because they are the parents of victims. If you are silent, you agree with them. Either you are for gun control or you’re an insensitive, terrible person. Now there’s a narrative Big Media can love.

225 Responses to “List of People Who Claimed Invited Comments Were “Heckling””

They know we don’t trust them… and they don’t care. Their audience, save a few conservatives who watch primarily for either entertainment value or to complain, is comprised of fellow liberals who define heckling just as they do. What remains of the liberal media is just giving their customers what they want to see/read.

There have been NO honest hearings. This was a dog and pony show with this father the featured trained seal.

If I were there, I’d have piped up and told the chairman that this event was being recorded and the recording showed input was solicited from the audience by the witness.

Yes, I do this kind of thing. Back in 94, during Mike Huffington’s acceptance speech for winning the GOP primary to go up against Feinstein, he invited comments when he asked what was the difference between him and Feinstein, then paused. I shouted, “NOTHING!” and KCBS (or was the am station KFMB at that time?) caught it and aired it on their radion news the next. I got several callos of congratulation the next day.

Always, the odds of as many people seeing the actual tape, or seeing the retraction and having it forwarded and retweeted is vastly less than those who saw the juicy original incorrect information and planted it in their brain memory for all time. These oopsies are happening way too frequently on important issues for them to be blown off as mere carelessness that is easily fixed by a later retraction. Journalists (and mostly I do use the term loosely any more) must be regularly throttled in print and called out for making the original “mistake” –whether it was fed to them by some other entity, whether it was a careless lazy copy cat and printed without independent verification, or whether it was maliciously intentional.

Karl, it’s terrific to see you! But I’m a bit surprised you’re so willing to let Slate off the hook after they retracted.

Why do I need an assault rifle and hi cap magazines? Because the police and SWAT have them. The 2nd Amendment was not put in place so we could protect ourselves from each other but so we could protect ourselves from the Government.

I need an assault rifle and high capacity magazines because it’s none of your business—period!
I can appreciate this man’s loss, but that doesn’t give him the right to tell me, or anyone else, how to protect our families. Besides, if we can’t control our borders, it’ll create a black market and encourage even more smuggling. IOW, it’s a useless gesture. Do we really need anymore symbolic laws.

Why do I need an assault rifle and hi cap magazines? Because the police and SWAT have them. The 2nd Amendment was not put in place so we could protect ourselves from each other but so we could protect ourselves from the Government

It really wasn’t. The Constitution was written to insure domestic tranquility, among other things. The framers made insurrection a crime, and squashed two rebellions (Shay’s rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion) all around the time of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The former (Shay’s Rebellion) prompted many to reject the Articles of Confederation in favor of a new constitution (what we now know as “The Constitution”) creating a stronger centralized federal government.

The Whiskey Rebellion happened after the Constitution had been ratified, and was put down by the militia. The Second Amendment was there so that there could BE a militia; it was not there to favor the insurrection.

There are plenty of rational arguments why the Second Amendment protects even assault rifles. But to say that the Second Amendment gives people the right to rise against their government using extraconstitutional means is not only silly, but unsupported by facts.

You are delusional if you think you and your AR15 would be anything but a speed bump. Not that I wish you harm but if there was such a conflict, I’m betting on it taking no more than twenty minutes before you weren’t even that.

And as being delusional is a sign of mental illness and those who are mentally ill forfeit their right to weapons…

I think it’s a better argument to claim that the Founders intended for us to be able to protect yourselves against marauders and criminals given that early Americans had no hope of the police riding to their rescue.

Here’re the pair of original Slate Headlines apparently based solely on “according to” one person info:

“Father of Newtown Victim Interrupted by Shouts of ‘Second Amendment!’” and “Father of Newtown Victim Heckled by Gun-Rights Supporters”

Here’s the Slate author’s mea culpa:

Update: We now have video of Neil Heslin’s testimony to Connecticut lawmakers yesterday—during which he was reportedly “heckled” by gun-rights advocates—and the footage suggests that the initial characterization of the incident was more than a little misleading.

Oh so NOW after being called out, Slate does the research and verification that reporters are supposed to do to earn their keep and earn the readers’ trust. NOW, he looks at the video and sees the truth.

It was a classy and honest retraction as retractions go. But a retraction of your own created mess is not a “debunking”.

But to say that the Second Amendment gives people the right to rise against their government using extraconstitutional means is not only silly, but unsupported by facts.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/30/2013 @ 9:14 am

I agree, I also agree with banning large capacity clips – but thats been my position ever since they started selling them years ago. Being in law enforcement on the streets of NEw Orleans – anyone thinking that we need large capacity clips – honestly has such poor judgement such a low understanding of such basic things that they are not worth even addressing.

But Kman, I hope you are not trying again to forward a mission to ban weapons – I also think that everyone should be required to carry, REQUIRED. That any local government that trys to restrict weapons should be jailed, for life.

Guns keep us free, the free fire zone in New orleans ended when the state granted the breifcase, purse and car as an extention of your personal property and they approved the use of deadly force to kill anyone trying to take it

Crime plummetted and Lousiana passed from being a democrat controlled tate to Republican.

encourage means that, and those people should have shut up and not said anything - they were not heckling but they should have let this tragic manipulation of a grieving man go on in respect to the dead child not the cause that was making this incident even more tragic.

There is no mystery about what the Founders intended with the writing of the Second Amendment. As two of many examples, you may read what Thomas Jefferson and St. George Tucker wrote about the Second Amendment.

As for you silly claim about mental illness, I was a nuclear weapons officer on a fast attack submarine and, therefore, under continuous obsevation for signs of mental illness. I was also declared mentally fit by a federal government physciatrist when I sought a conscientious objector discharge from the US Navy. Since then I, as a nuclear worker, have been under continuous observation for decades for any evidence of mental health issues, reinforced by periodic background checks and interviews by trained mental health professionals. I doubt that you can make a similar claim.

You might also want to recall the oath of office that you took when you entered military service. The oath is to support and defend the Constitution, not any government or any individual. I have taken that oath at least three times, and fully understand it. Apparently you just mouthed the words.

I would rather be a speed bump against tyranny for twenty minutes than live a life supporting tyrants.

As for the police, you and I still have no hope of the police riding to the rescue if we ever need them.

OK, what does Slate’s and (the other outlets’) journalistic eff ups have to do with your personal assesment of what the audience should or should not have done– or what you would have done had you been there? Two toally separate issues, Eric. For what reason do you try to conflate them?

You might also want to recall the oath of office that you took when you entered military service. The oath is to support and defend the Constitution, not any government or any individual.

To defend the constitution is to defend the government.

The Constitution sets out how our national representatives, including the President, are put into office, and removed from office. If someone sets out to remove those persons through means not specified in the Constitution (i.e., through armed rebellion), they are, by definition, not defending the Constitution.

If one chooses to break a law which was passed through Constitutional means, they are, by definition, not defending the Constitution.

#16 and #23, Ralph Gizzip didn’t say the 2nd Amendment gave Americans the right to protect themselves from the government, that’s one of our inalienable self-evident rights, and it’s a right our Founding Fathers exercised when they fought against the British in 1776.

The 2nd Amendment simply guarantees we can’t be deprived of the means to resist government tyranny.

First, you infer that Chicago’s gun restrictions have REDUCED gun murders, then you infer that defending the unconstitutional actions by a particular administration is actually an act of de facto “defending the Constitution,” because defending the “government” somehow equals defending the Constitution.

You’re most likely an aging hippie who has bootleg concert recordings of Crosby, Stills, and Nash.

There is so much horsecrap here it’s hard to know where to begin. So I’ll begin at the beginning.

33. To defend the constitution is to defend the government.

Complete, utter BS. To defend the Constitution is to defend the people. In typical Marxist fashion Kmart implies the government and the people are the same. Everything within the government, nothing outside the government, nothing against the government. In that sense he reflects Obama’s odious inauguration speech.

The fact of the matter is that in a system such as ours that establishes that the people are the sovereign and the government is subordinate to the will of the people, the only entity that can rebel is the government.

The Constitution sets out how our national representatives, including the President, are put into office, and removed from office. If someone sets out to remove those persons through means not specified in the Constitution (i.e., through armed rebellion), they are, by definition, not defending the Constitution.

Again this is BS. If the people had to remove someone by force of arms it is because the tyrant acting under color of authority has rebelled against the people. Otherwise the force of arms wouldn’t be necessary.

If one chooses to break a law which was passed through Constitutional means, they are, by definition, not defending the Constitution.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/30/2013 @ 9:44 am

Like Obama’s imperial edicts are passed by “constitutional means?” Where does it say that the legislative power to make new law is vested in Obama?

A DC district court has found Obama’s appointments to the NLRB to be an unconstitutional abuse of power. Yet Obama refuses to abide by it. By what authority, then, Kmart can anyone claim the imperial edicts issued forth from the NLRB, which have the force of law, are constitutional?

You’re damn right businesses should ignore any of the imperial edicts coming from those illegally appointed minions of Barack Obama.

To argue that to defend the Constitution is to defend the government is to demonstrate that when you scratch a liberal you discover a Stalinist.

Or a fascist (the differences are insignificant); you’re just restating the fuhrerprinzip. That the leader’s word is above all written law. When the leader’s word conflicts with written law, such as a Constitution, the law is wrong and the leader is right. This is what liberals mean by a “living Constitution.”

In any case Kmart’s “argument,” such as it is, is betrayed by the fact that liberals are eager to declare the Constitution a dead letter. The fact is the entire Constitution but especially the Bill of Rights was intended as a guide to inform people when government had exceeded its boundaries.

To defend the Constitution is most definitely not to defend the government. Unless you’re an advocate of the “living Constitution”/fuhrerprinzip. The Constitution conforms to whatever meaning the government insists it must to justify whatever it’s doing at the moment.

In typical Marxist fashion Kmart implies the government and the people are the same

I guess Lincoln was a Marxist when he talked about a government by, of and for the people.

You people seem to think that government and those who serve in it are beamed in from an alien planet or something.

Our democratic government is merely the means by which we, the people, choose to govern ourselves. Even though there will always be people — sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right — who disagree with the course a particular administration takes, it is not outside of us.

And the Constitution is written such that extra-constitutional means are not necessary in order for the people to create change. That’s its genius, because ultimate power rests with the people — nor one person, and not one faction.

The fact is the entire Constitution but especially the Bill of Rights was intended as a guide to inform people when government had exceeded its boundaries.

Agreed. But more important than that, it provides for WHO gets to decide when those boundaries are exceeded (hint: it’s not you), and it provides a mechanism — the political process — for correction when those boundaries are exceeded.

Not to mention the ultimate form of self-correction which is amendment to the Constitution itself.

While that is literally true, it almost sounds like the guy was being dishonest. And i don’t think he was. I am frankly impressed with Heslin’s decency so far in all of this, even as i disagree with his actual politics. He seems like an honest and heartbroken guy who even last night on Morgan’s show agreed when Morgan said it was not heckling.

So a slight massage in the language would be in order. Something more like this: “and that the father was incorrectly portraying silence as agreement.”

Poor Kmart : Everyone is picking on him! I just started re-reading Bastiat’s Law and even Federic is lambasting Kmart’s position. If a guy who died over 150 years ago is “bitch slapping” your positions, you are really off base!

Why do I have to need something in order to own it? I own all kinds of things I don’t need

Because…. Supreme Court doctrine holds that the government’s ability to curtail a right is related to the hassle such a curtailment has on the exercise of that right. The greater a law restricts a right, the less likely the law will be held constitutional. And conversely, the less restrictive a law is, the more likely it will pass.

Yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater doesn’t significantly impact anyone’s 1st Amendment rights, so laws banning doing that are upheld. The laws mandating, for example, a 24 hour waiting period before getting an abortion will depend on how troublesome the Court views those laws (which is why supporters of such laws downplay their hopes that those laws would greatly reduce the number of abortions).

In this case, the constitutionality of banning a particular weapon would hinge on whether not having the ability to buy that gun significantly restricted people from being able to defend themselves. The MORE you absolutely positively NEED a particular weapon or type of weapon to defend yourself, the less able government would be able to ban it.

(And note, I am not arguing in favor of a ban) since assault weapons are functionally the same as less-meaning looking guns which would remain freely available, I argue that one’s ability to defend their house and family was no less if they had an AR15 than if they had a different weapon. the same holds if Congress decided they were going to ban guns manufactured outside the US; as people wanting guns would still have plenty of choices, I think such a ban would withstand review.

#60 A continuing puzzle is why JD thinks name-calling constitutes a rebuttal to someone’s argument. Functionally, it is no different than a liberal yelling ‘racist’ rather than try to defend whatever policy they’re advocating.

Kmart, I’ve got news for you. Lincoln didn’t write the Constitution nor is he a source for the intent of the Constitution.

You people seem to think that government and those who serve in it are beamed in from an alien planet or something.

You write nonsense, Kmart. Genius; did any of the colonists ever imply or state that King George III and those who served him were beamed from another planet when they took up arms against his government and rebelled?

I hate to break it to you, Kmethhead, but “people” as used in our founding documents didn’t mean the world was divided into humans and non-human aliens. It simply meant those not in government. That’s why our Constitution refers to three entities; the government of the United States, the states, and the people. Because “the people” are not synonymous with government. Only a Marxist would read Lincoln’s words and assume that he meant the government and the people are the same thing.

There would have been no need for the Constitution to include a 10th Amendment if that was remotely true.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution refers to three entirely distinct and separate bodies. All with their own powers (and only one, the people, with rights as governments don’t have rights but delegated powers). But reading for comprehension and grasping simple points doesn’t seem to be your strong point.

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

Only the human beings in government can betray the people. The people can’t betray the people.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

NEED was being discussed in the context of the father asking why anyone would NEED assault weapons, or “high capacity” clips, etc … There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that limits the scope to arms that the government deems the people may need.

The necessary you reference so mendoucheously is in reference to the necessity of a well trained militia.

Only a Marxist would read Lincoln’s words and assume that he meant the government and the people are the same thing.

Then what did Lincoln mean when he talked about a government of, by, and for the people? He meant what the framers meant: that our government governs with the consent of the governed. It is constitutionally devised that way.

And many, including Madison, felt there wasn’t a “need” for the Tenth Amendment. It was, in the parlance of the time, “self-evident”. But it was included to appease certain states and factions to get the Constitution passed.

As for your quotes, I’m not sure what you think they say. The militia, for example, was indeed comprised of the whole of the people. But you overlook that, under the Constitution, it was to be regulated by Congress, i.e., a governmental body. So how can it be that the framers intended the government to control a militia designed to overthrow… itself?

Finally, you have to understand that Hamilton was discussing a widespread fear among the population — e.g., the fear of violent usurpation of political liberties — and then using a hypothetical situation to illustrate how the proposed constitution offers the best protection against that fear because of the built-in tension between the branches of government, as well as the horizontal state vs federal tension. He wasn’t talking about the Second Amendment, and certainly not advocating it.

Thanks for that quote. That seems pretty clear to me. I’m not sure why there would be any discussion about the matter if people were committed to intellectual honesty and obeying their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Oh.

Well, even if they thought things had changed and it was no longer a good idea, just as said above, the answer is to propose and ratify a new Constitutional Amendment. It’s obvious that a government functioning as intended would do exactly that.

Kmart desperately does not wish to discuss the MFM simply making up a despicable story to advance their political agenda.

There’s nothing to discuss. I agree that the initial reports exaggerated the “interruption” (if one can even call it that) of the father’s testimony. I’m glad most media outlets are making the correction, and discouraged that others aren’t.

That said, I don’t think the journalistic gaffe sheds ANY light whatsoever on the larger debate. It’s not the “gotcha” which is inclined to change any minds.

that our government governs with the consent of the governed. It is constitutionally devised that way

Umm, yea. What is supposed to happen doesn’t always happen, and then the question is what do you do when what wasn’t supposed to happen does. jump up and down and say, “You’re not supposed to do that?”

There are examples where citizens by threat of using their own arms enforced law and the public safety when the officials of government did not do their job. It has happened multiple times on local levels, by God’s mercy may it never be more than isolated incidents in response to clearly corrupt officials.

I hope you aren’t being dishonest again, Kman, and simply didn’t know about this.

—-

I see Charles Johnson claims he was horrified. That he was on board should have been an indication to everyone else that this story needs extra verification. There was video of this… why didn’t they watch the whole thing before all offering the same untrue claims about it? I guess because they got their talking points and coordinated. Anyone who finds themselves marching to the same beat as Charles Johnson needs to seriously reconsider who they trust.

Kmart – you called it a gaffe, a clumsy error, a faux pas, unintentional. How could this not be intentional? If they watched it, they knew it to not be true. If they didn’t watch it, then they just made this up. Either way, it was no gaffe.

. They know we don’t trust them… and they don’t care. Their audience, save a few conservatives who watch primarily for either entertainment value or to complain, is comprised of fellow liberals who define heckling just as they do. What remains of the liberal media is just giving their customers what they want to see/read.

Comment by steve (369bc6) — 1/30/2013 @ 7:34 am

I wish that was all it was. But they’re mostly trying to manipulations the uninformed. One of my friends posted a link on Facebook about this man being heckled and he would’ve believed it if I didn’t post the actual video for him and have him watch the alleged heckling. He was genuinely surprised that the media lied to him.

Do you think, Dustin, that the entire media establishment gets its marching orders from something like Journolist on every single issue, no matter how small?

Or is it more likely that ONE person (mis)characterized it in a tweet, etc., and others piled on before video was seen?

Let me put it another way: why would someone KNOWINGLY characterize wrongly if they also KNEW there was video which could contradict them?

Stop the grand conspiracy theories. It snowballed and people reported on it without checking its veracity. When more (and better facts) came in, they changed their story. Happens all the time. Ideally, it shouldn’t happen at all, but it does. To Fox News, too.

Kmart – you called it a gaffe, a clumsy error, a faux pas, unintentional. How could this not be intentional? If they watched it, they knew it to not be true. If they didn’t watch it, then they just made this up. Either way, it was no gaffe.

Comment by JD (b63a52)

Exactly. All of these ‘journalists’ making the same factual assertions, claiming it’s based on video, and their claim was false. How is that a ‘gaffe’? That’s a lie.

EPWJ attempts to rival the International Man of Parody with: “Being in law enforcement on the streets of NEw Orleans – anyone thinking that we need large capacity clips – honestly has such poor judgement such a low understanding of such basic things that they are not worth even addressing.”

LOL. Right, except for the word “necessary”. In fact, the Second Amendment is the ONLY amendment which makes reference to need.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/30/2013 @ 10:42 am

Very good, Kmart. It explains in plain English exactly why I need an AR-15 with high capacity mags:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I need an AR-15, or whatever happens to be a suitable military weapon, because it is necessary to the security of a free state. Both in terms of the entity as well as to secure the condition of liberty.

LOL. Right, except for the word “necessary”. In fact, the Second Amendment is the ONLY amendment which makes reference to need.

Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/30/2013 @ 10:42 am

You couldn’t find a more characteristic falsehood of Kman’s work. Kman knows that the word “necessary” does not modify the right mentioned in the Second Amendment. Kman knows that the word “necessary” refers to the explanatory clause’s mention of why the right is “necessary”, not a modifier of the kinds of arms protected.

From the New Hampshire state website constitution text, verbatim cut and paste:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

No, it’s not. Once the “government” decides to ignore the plain text of the Constitution, the two are clearly separate and distinct. The government has, at that point, abandoned the sole source of its legitimacy.

Then mounted your campaign to apologize for it. It was a gaffe, and all that nonsense.

Secondly, MOST of the people tweeted it, which barely passes it as “reporting”, and goes to my point about this being faux outrage.

Not at all true. MSNBC. The Telegraph. americaBlog. CNN. Kos. Almost countless others.. David Frum, who has since acknowledged is was BS, but now claims gun fetishists viewed it as he parent was asking for it, and claims that pointing out his dishonesty is sociopathic. Do dismiss this as a Twitter dustup is flat out dishonest.

And many, including Madison, felt there wasn’t a “need” for the Tenth Amendment. It was, in the parlance of the time, “self-evident”. But it was included to appease certain states and factions to get the Constitution passed.

So in other words it was necessary. And it was necessary to ensure that the United States government did not usurp the powers belonging to the two other separate and distinct entities that were parties to the contract; the states and the people.

As for your quotes, I’m not sure what you think they say. The militia, for example, was indeed comprised of the whole of the people. But you overlook that, under the Constitution, it was to be regulated by Congress, i.e., a governmental body. So how can it be that the framers intended the government to control a militia designed to overthrow… itself?

“Regulate” and “control” again are not synonymous, especially as they were used at the time. A “well-regulated” militia meant one that was well-trained, well-equipped, and well-led.

The people who were insistent that a militia system and not a standing army was the best bulwark against a tyrannical over-reaching central government did not give that central government control over the militia. But these men did want that militia well-regulated (again, well-trained, well-equipped, and well-led) to better combat both internal and external threats.

Perhaps it isn’t only your Marxist indoctrination that causes you to confuse different words as if they are interchangeable. Although I’m sure it has a great deal to do with it. I find that people who fall for the Marxist scam have a limited grasp of certain subjects. I’ll have to add vocabulary to the list.

(And it’s a fascinating assertion that we’re “free” when the government won’t, for example, let you drink milk from your own dairy herd. Or requires you to commit what you consider a venal sin or go to jail.)

Ah, yes, the old “Americans can’t do what third-world thugs are capable of” argument.

Yes, I must have missed reading that ‘third world thugs’ are taking on the US military with AR15s. I’d be surprised if even a double digit percentage of US casualties were from rifles of any kind, let alone thugs with non-automatic AR15s. You do understand that an AR15 is NOT military grade hardware?

And don’t delude yourself, there would be no 2nd Civil War. Puff up your chest all you want and tell yourself that you’d be leading the real patriots into battle against the government, if the government wanted to confiscate your weapon, they’d do so… while you stood silently watching them do it. All talk, no hat.

The people who were insistent that a militia system and not a standing army was the best bulwark against a tyrannical over-reaching central government did not give that central government control over the militia

You are just flat out wrong, Steve. They DID give control over the militia to the central government. Article 1, Sectin 8 of the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power….

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively”

So the central government can organize, arm, discipline and govern the militia, as well as determine when to call them forth. Tell me how that’s not “controlling” the militia.

PCD:

The basic problem is Liberals do not accept that the Bill of Rights RESTRAINS what the Government can do.

Of course we do, but we also understand, as did the founders, that every right is subject to reasonable limitations. Free speech does not mean you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater or telephone in a bomb threat, for example. The DEFAULT position is that the rights exist, but there are always exceptions.

if the government wanted to confiscate your weapon, they’d do so… while you stood silently watching them do it. All talk, no hat.

Comment by steve (369bc6) — 1/30/2013 @ 12:06 pm

They would get the ones they know about as a consequence of their unconstitutional laws regarding registration, but I would stand by helplessly yet calmly since they wouldn’t get the other ones they did not know about.

Thank you for pointing out the need for the “shall not be infringed” part of the 2nd, and how the government is already in violation.

So the central government can organize, arm, discipline and govern the militia, as well as determine when to call them forth. Tell me how that’s not “controlling” the militia.

Congress’ control over the militia, especially as it was meant in the 18th century, was restricted by the part you dishonestly leave out.

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively”

The words:

reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The fact that every single officer from the commmanding general on down was appointed by the states, and that these officers trained the men and not federal officials, meant precisely that they couldn’t “control” the militia and call it into service against their own state.

“Well regulated” means precisely what I said it means, and it does not mean control. In fact, my definition was just a restatement of what the militia clause says “well regulated” means:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

I.e. well-trained, well-armed, and well-led. No matter how you mendaciously mangle the words of the Constitution you can’t twist them so that “government” is synonymous with people and “regulated” is synonymous with “controlled.”

Roland – The American people voted in favor of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban five time according to your logic, right?

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/30/2013 @ 12:24 pm

Yes. Although 5 is obviously quite a few less times than 23. If you want to understand how our system of government works, DR, you need to figure out that when representatives misbehave but the People send them back to DC over and over again, anyway, there comes a point at which it can be reasonably said that the People have voted in favor of the misbehavior.

such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States

I didn’t miss that part. The point is that Congress has ultimate control over the militia, in that Congress can employ any or all of the militia “in the Service of the United States” and thereafter govern it.

What part of “shall not be infringed” escapes you?

Well, every amendment implicitly “shall not be infringed”. You seem to suggest that the Second Amendment is a super duper amendment which does not allow for any exceptions. According to this (stupid) theory, not only should convicted felons be allowed to carry weapons in jail, but the framers intended it to be that way.

The fact that every single officer from the commmanding general on down was appointed by the states, and that these officers trained the men and not federal officials, meant precisely that they couldn’t “control” the militia and call it into service against their own state.

Wrong again. The Constitution DID allow the federal government to control the militia and call it into service against a state. In fact, that’s exactly what happened a couple years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified.

There was an armed insurrection in Western Pennsylvania. Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792, which allowed the President to call state militias into action. President Washington did just that, and a federal militia of almost 13,000 went into Pennsylvania and suppressed the whole thing.

The federal government could not raise and federalize the state militias against the will of the state governments.

Well, it could — legally and constitutionally. Practically is another matter, I suppose, but the Whiskey Rebellion didn’t put that to the test, and that’s beside the point.

The point is what the framers envisioned. And that was federal control over the state militias. They wouldn’t have allowed that AND allowed the people to serve as militias with the “right” to overthrow the federal government. The Constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact.

“If you want to understand how our system of government works, DR, you need to figure out that when representatives misbehave but the People send them back to DC over and over again, anyway, there comes a point at which it can be reasonably said that the People have voted in favor of the misbehavior.”

Roland – That’s a nice bright line test you have outlined there which anybody can apply.

I appreciate your lessons in math and government. Do you believe that 5 is considerably less than 23 because of the expiration of the 1994 Ban or some other reason?

I imagine “federal powers” are a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ proposition with him.
When a Democrat is Prez, he’s all intoxicated and gung-ho on federal power.
But when a Republican is in the White House, uh, not so gung-ho on federal power.

Gitmo and the renewal of the Patriot Act are a couple of examples. And can you imagine the uproar had Bush & Cheney been conducting drone strikes to the degree that Barry O and Lunchpail Joe have been conducting them ?

Practically is another matter, I suppose, but the Whiskey Rebellion didn’t put that to the test, and that’s beside the point.

“Practically” is exactly the point. It is the only point, given that the fuhrerprinzip approach which declares the Constitution a “living document” will always be used by the government to declare the government’s own actions constitutional and lawful.

As a practical matter the Whiskey rebels won in the end. No one ever had a conviction that stood for conspiring to rebel against the US. Or even for taking up arms and using force against federal officials trying to enforce the tax. And the western farmers still resisted paying the tax after 1794 when Washington sent in the militia to put down the insurrection.

So Jefferson had the tax repealed in 1801. There is no way anyone can argue that the small western distillers’ refusal to pay the tax was “constitutional.” But the federal government at the time knew better, “practically,” than to force the issue.

CBS Evening had a story about how Congress deliberately slowed down the speed of gun tracing. Prioroty traces are still done in one day. Others take 5 days.. Gun stores that go out of business send their paper records to the BATF. Obama ordered every gun confiscated by police to be traced.

Comment by IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States and some Canadian provinces (98ae1f) — 1/30/2013 @ 2:34 pm The fact that virtually all rich people do exactly the same thing — send their kids to private schools — says more than enough about what contributes to success:

It’s generally not going to public schools.

Pretty much so, except that there are some free public schools that people with connections maybe know how to get into. Obama could have done that.

Roland – That’s a nice bright line test you have outlined there which anybody can apply.

…….
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/30/2013 @ 1:15 pm

The greater your understanding of reality becomes, the better you will understand there are rarely any actual bright red lines to make things easy for the simpleminded. The harder you look, the more everything tends to fade to gray, and the more experience and good judgment become vital.

Even when the People get a chance to do a supposedly ‘straight up or down vote’ on a particular complex issue, it’s almost never really a clean vote on the issue at hand. There are always all kinds of crosscurrent arguments as to how the bill should or should not have been written, and what it included or failed to consider.

For instance, the People of California really wanted to legalize marijuana, but they didn’t like the Proposition the pro-legalization crowd wrote for them to vote on. The anti-legalization crowd argue the issue is settled because the Proposition was voted down, but that is just not the way politics really works. The struggle goes on, and more votes will be cast, and the framing of the issue will gradually change over time.

I laugh at liberals and what constitutes logic for them. Kmart, How about we drop you in backwoods Alaska this spring? Bet you’ll want an AR15 and the biggest ammunition magazines you can find. Too bad we can’t transport you back to the Rodney King riots as a Korean. Again, you’d be looking for any repeating guns with high capacity magazines to save your sorry skin as LAPD was too PC and emasculated to stop the riots in the early stages.

Go to Case Lookup on the left menu, select Criminal/Motor Vehicle, and then search under Pending Case: Search By Defendant (Heslin, N).

BTW, one of the charges is a D-felony.

And if you were really curious, you could look up his civil & family cases, and learn that he denied paternity of his dead son, and lost custody due to neglect. Not sure where the website is to show that he owes $35k in child support, so you’ll just have to take my word on it.

Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection put up a good post yesterday regarding a “discussion” (it looked like it was more of an ostentatiously polite debate to me) between his fellow Cornell law professor Michael Dorf and Alan Gura, the attorney who successfully argued the Heller case before the Supreme Court.

It was primarily about the unconstitutionality of the NY SAFE act. But the “insurrectionist” justification for the 2nd Amendment came up as well.

Everyone agreed that historically (and textually) the insurrectionist justification was one reason why the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. Even Michael Dorf who argued it is no longer a politically practical argument to make pointed out “it’s right there” in Madison’s Federalist no. 46.

They touched on a number of issues, including the concept of defending oneself against “tyranny” as a justification at the time of enactment (they both agreed that historically it was a factor), and other aspects of 2nd Amendment law.

It’s worth pointing out because anyone (ahem) who argues that the insurrectionist justification can’t possibly be one of the reasons why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights is historically and literally illiterate. It isn’t just that they don’t know the history behind it, they can’t *****’ read plain English.

Or dishonest; we can’t leave that out. The anti-gun left has a long track record of falsifying history to make it appear they actually have a case. Bellesiles’ book “Arming America” comes to mind as an example of falsifying history to argue the 2nd Amendment doesn’t actually mean what it says in plain English. Actually Obama comes to mind as well, as when he was working with Bill Ayers they funded fake studies to argue the 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee any sort of individual right.

Not going to be me. Someone would have to first give me a good reason to know why I should look it up to see if there is a good reason to know about it.

But as far as good reasons go, anyone interested in the details of the episode where armed farmers protected their neighborhood vet from arrest by the Michigan State police back in the 1970′s, as an example of armed citizenry protecting against governmental corruption? If so, I’ll try to look it up (unless someone better at it wants to do it).

[The basic story- Local farmers were having problem with cattle getting sick and having deformed calves, investigation by state authorities found nothing. A local vet, suspecting some kind of poisoning, sent tissue samples to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation ("WARF") in Madison, WI for independent testing. The state accused him of violating some kind of law about unauthorized sending of animal tissue across state lines or some such thing and sent state police to get him. Somehow word of it got around and by the time the state police showed up about 10 or so of the local farmers were standing in front of his office with their rifles and shotguns (not pointed at the police, just in their hands pointing up). The farmers said the vet wasn't going anywhere without a fight. The state trooper in charge at the scene called the higher ups and informed them of the situation and asked if they really wanted him arrested that bad, to which the higher ups backed down.
Eventually it was shown that a local feed mill had been selling grain for feed that was intended only for planting, as it had been treated with something toxic for direct consumption. I think it was a Dioxin-like compound that was used as a fungicide. I don't think there was any proof that the mistake had been known and was being covered up, and if so just who was involved, but it sure seemed strange that the authorities wanted to smack down a vet just trying to do his job for his community.]

when he was working with Bill Ayers they funded fake studies to argue the 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee any sort of individual right.

Comment by Steve57 (104863) — 1/31/2013 @ 8:05 am

Hah and LOL!!!! The ultimate example of what’s good for me is not for thee! (Only Leftist anarchists should be allowed to have weapons of individual and mass destruction).
And these people have control over our government.

I just read thru the first 50 comments but it’s amazing how some people seem to be unaware of the governments that have murdered their own citizens in just the last 80 years – this isn’t ancient history folks.

Starvation in the Ukraine, killing off of the Polish leadership class, both by Stalin, the Jews massacred by Hitler, the Cultural Revolution in China, and Pol Pot all claimed at least a million lives of their OWN CITIZENS. If the kulaks had guns instead of pitchforks Stalin might have been stopped in the Ukraine.

narciso, one of the things they didn’t get into and I wish they would have is the idea of mandating people buy guns with magazines that don’t exist.

Apparently per the NY SAFE act you can still use 10 round mags as long as you only load 7 rounds at home (although the law apparently allows you to load 10 at the range) but you can no longer buy 10 round magazines. You can only buy 7 round magazines. There may be some pocket guns like (I’m just throwing these out as I don’t know) the Beretta Tomcat or Kel-Tec P3AT that may use 7 round mags. But I’m aware of no full-size or even compact pistols from H&K, Sig Sauer, Beretta, Glock that even offer that as an option. They’re simply not made. And the manufacturer may never make a NY compliant magazine. The state gov’t has made it so onerous for people to buy guns, and I believe they’ve placed additional requirements on manufacturers to sell guns, that it’s probably just not cost effective to tool up to make 7 round mags to sell in one state in one country for a company that sells guns worldwide.

How can that be constitutional? That’s effectively banning those guns.

NEWTOWN, Conn. — As part of an ongoing national effort to help prevent illegal “straw” purchases of firearms, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms industry, is reminding the public along the Southern border in Texas and Arizona that stiff penalties are in place for individuals convicted of such purchases.

Radio and billboard advertisements for the Don’t Lie for the Other Guy program are being aired by NSSF in English and Spanish in the El Paso, McAllen/Brownsville and Laredo, Texas markets, as well as in the Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona area. The message: “Buy a gun for someone who can’t and buy yourself 10 years in jail. Whatever you do . . . Don’t Lie for the Other Guy . . .”

More than 130 million media impressions will be delivered from January through March through the public-education program, which is being funded by the firearms industry.

“Don’t Lie” is a cooperative program between the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and NSSF, the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry. The effort was developed over a decade ago to raise public awareness about the seriousness of the crime of purchasing a firearm for someone who cannot legally do so. The program also helps ATF educate firearms dealers so they can be better prepared to deter potential straw purchases.

The public campaign drives home the message that anyone attempting an illegal firearm purchase faces a stiff federal felony penalty of up to 10 years in jail or up to $250,000 in fines.

To legally purchase a firearm, a person must be able to pass an FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check and fully comply with state and local laws. When a criminal knows he cannot pass this check, he may try to induce a friend or acquaintance to make the purchase on his behalf, which is known as a straw purchase and is a felony.

“Our goal is to raise awareness among residents of Texas and Arizona that there are serious consequences for illegally straw purchasing a firearm,” said Stephen L. Sanetti, NSSF president and CEO. “This warning can help deter an illegal purchase long before a person steps into a licensed retail store.”

This public awareness campaign constitutes only part of the Don’t Lie for the Other Guy outreach effort. The full Don’t Lie for the Other Guy program, which also involves educating firearms retailers to better detect and prevent straw purchases, has been rolled out in major cities throughout the country and has run before along the U.S.-Mexican border. This is a campaign that ATF has called “vital” and “an important tool for ATF as it pursues its mission of preventing terrorism, reducing violent crime, and protecting the nation.” In the retailer segment, federal firearms licensees are provided a Don’t Lie for the Other Guy retailer kit. Each kit contains a training video and informational brochure for storeowners and staff, as well as point-of-purchase displays aimed to deter illegal straw purchases.

“The firearms industry is proud of its longstanding cooperative relationship with the ATF and the entire law enforcement community by assisting them in their efforts to combat the criminal acquisition and misuse of firearms,” said NSSF Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.